Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "A Google Glass user was interrogated without legal counsel for a couple of hours under suspicion that he may have been recording a film in the AMC movie theater. Although the matter could have been cleared in minutes, federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our constitutional freedoms."
Hours of being detained that could have been avoided if they had just searched his devices (which he repeatedly suggested they do): "Eventually, after a long time somebody came with a laptop and an USB cable at which point he told me it was my last chance to come clean. I repeated for the hundredth time there is nothing to come clean about and this is a big misunderstanding so the FBI guy finally connected my Glass to the computer, downloaded all my personal photos and started going though them one by one (although they are dated and it was obvious there was nothing on my Glass that was from the time period they accused me of recording). Then they went through my phone, and 5 minutes later they concluded I had done nothing wrong." Update: 01/21 21:41 GMT by U L: The Columbus Dispatchconfirmed the story with the Department of Homeland Security. The ICE and not the FBI detained the Glass wearer, and there happened to be an MPAA task force at the theater that night, who then escalated the incident.

According to the article, he was told it was a voluntary interrogation. At that point, he should have just taken down the names of all the officers and movie theater staff and left.

AMC is a terrible movie theater franchise. I carry my laptop in a backpack and get asked all the time to open my bag before going into an AMC theater. I always refuse, and they always bluster and threaten, but they still let me in. I don't mind having my bag searched as long as everybody's bag is being searched. I do mind being singled out for special handling. Other movie theater chains don't do this at all.

AMC, I hope you get a ton of well-deserved bad press from this latest episode.

If they're so terrible, why do you keep going back there and arguing with them about your bag?

"You guys totally suck! You don't know how to run a business! Here, take my money!!"

It's no wonder everything is going down the shitter in America these days. People just sit around on online forums and bitch and complain about stuff, but never actually do anything to force a change: they keep throwing their money at the same shitty companies, and keep voting for the same shitty politicians, and expecting things to improve somehow.

AMC is a de facto monopoly where I live, so I have little choice in the matter. There is still one independent movie theater operator, next to the local university, and that provides some relief.

But, you know, you do have a point. Why SHOULD I pay $12.00 for a ticket + $8.00 for $0.25 worth of popcorn, when the entertainment experience lasts only a couple of hours? I go to the movies about 2-3 times a week, which is $2,080 per year on the low side. That is a lot of money to be sure. I do love the movies, but I don't have to necessarily fund these guys.

Law enforcement and Government in general doesn't like when random citizens record things. It makes it harder to railroad people in courts afterwards if there is actual footage of an incident.

So anyone using Google Glass can expect to be bullied and harassed whenever it can be done with a "reasonable cause". And yes, law enforcement is not happy that just wearing something like that isn't grounds for it. But hey, do it in the movies and those Hollywood-lobbied antipiracy laws give them perfect justification...

That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.

You are shooting the messanger. The progress in our technologies will bring the lack of privacy you describe regardless of google or any other group.Our only option is to deal with it. First step would be to abolish stupid laws which force us to do many things in secret like criminalisation of drug consumption and production.

don't argue with those who have clearly closed minds and no room for seeing others' POVs.

people like him won't change their minds. don't even waste any time on them; they are a lost cause. the next generation may be a bit more open minded, but people like him are why we still have draconian laws on our books and why we jail people for plant usage.

How about I decide what I do with my own body, and you decide what you do with your body mmkay? If I want to funk myself up with drugs, that's my choice. If I have to steal to pay for the habit, well lock me up for stealing.If you decide that I should not be able to decide what I do to my own body, well I guess that goes both ways and would set a nice precedent for criminalizing various acts ranging from impregnation to breathing in the wrong air. Please stop trying to decide what's good for others, it's no

This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue. And tries to use novelty of said device to his advantage.

Police, etc... they are used to being recorded on cellphones or dash cams or security cameras or by eyewitnesses. This is nothing new for them. They do dislike it - but everyone does.

There is another side of coin: The more footage of every person there is, the more opportunities you have to find something incriminating or blackmail worthy. I am not afraid of cops getting free pass on some assaults.

I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras, analyzed for weaknesses and exploited. Anytime you run afoul of little pointless law, anytime you do something that can easily be taken out of context to villify you, any secret you might want to keep secret.

That is future "glassholes" are working to bring and it is freaking nightmare.

I am not afraid of cop dropping "resisted" or "was unccoperative" on me, I am afraid of some nice man visiting me with dosier on my life and explaining dozen different ways they can easily ruin various parts of it if I will not cooperate or if I will resist.

I don't see how your example of blaming specifically Google/Glass for this problem has anything to do with the current cache of thousands of walking cameras under government control. The nightmare of surveillance is already upon us. If Google Glass were pulled as a product tomorrow, the absence of "glassholes" will not guarantee an absence of abuse. The dossier man you fear can still come regardless.

Ironically, the person wearing Glass in a movie theater is being watched by several cameras at that time. Like I said, the abuse mechanisms are already in place, and you don't control any of them.

I'm very sorry to hear that and to see it moderated +5 Insightful. I hope you change your viewpoint on this topic and I also hope nothing too drastic has to occur for you to realize how terrible what you just said is.

I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras, analyzed for weaknesses and exploited. Anytime you run afoul of little pointless law, anytime you do something that can easily be taken out of context to villify you, any secret you might want to keep secret.

Yes, that sucks, too. But government servants, especially those that have our sanction to act violently, must be watched as closely as you describe.

This is about someone who just could not put down recoding device in enviroment in which it is big issue.

He could not put the "recording device" down because it is also his glasses, which he needed to see the screen from his seat.

This is going to happen more and more - wearable tech which augments is going to merge with prosthetic tech which enables / replaces. In future people who are currently blind may see via retinal implants coupled to electronic glasses with cameras (which may or may not record - how would you know ?).

What are you going to say to such people in your environment "in which it is a big issue" ? What do you suggest - deny the disabled prothetics for fear of the cyberman ?

I am afraid of future where anyones life is easily pieced together from footage gathered from hundreds/thousands walking cameras

Newsflash - most of your life is already recorded by hundreds/thousands of (organic) walking cameras and always has been. Recording is imperfect and reading out the data is a bit tricky currently (organic interface...) - but we'll probably fix that soon (find that scary?). You can currently avoid these cameras though - just avoid any other people. More scary to me is the possibility of billions of flying crawling insect sized cameras so small they can essentially never be avoided - but each to their own.

I am afraid of some nice man visiting me with dosier on my life and explaining dozen different ways they can easily ruin various parts of it if I will not cooperate or if I will resist.

I fear that far less - in pretty much any area, as create and capture tech improves so does faking-it tech. By the time they have thousands of hours of footage of every part of everyone's life, it will also be trivial to get a few images of you and insert "you" into any video scenario they want. Most peoples' lives are way to boring to spend the time reviewing all that footage - far more likely they'll just turn up with some very convincing footage of you doing interesting things with children and/or animals and/or recreational chemicals. Who cares if it's real ? In fact, with sufficient investment, they could pretty much do that now. The future will just make it cheaper and easier. No google glasses required.

He did not have to answer the questions at all, due to the Fifth at a minimum, and to the irrelevance you mention. He could at least have deferred to his attorney. Instead he elected, of his own free will, to lie. This is a crime.

Labeling such as 'bullshit politics' puts you in the same camp as Nixon claiming that the President is above the law. Personally I feel that those in authority should be held to a HIGHER standard, not a lesser one.

He did not have to answer the questions at all, due to the Fifth at a minimum, and to the irrelevance you mention. He could at least have deferred to his attorney. Instead he elected, of his own free will, to lie. This is a crime.

That would be true, if that's what he did. He did not, however, lie. Full stop. Rather, he answered the question he was asked, taking advantage of some ambiguity in the question, while knowing that that wasn't the information he was being asked for. Specifically, he was asked if he'd ever had sex with Lewinsky, and when asked for clarification, the prosecutor defined "sex" as "intercourse", so he said no. That's completely true, but it's also intentionally misleading. That's why he was never charged or sanctioned with perjury by the court. Instead, he was sanctioned for willfully violating the discovery procedure.

No what make this bullshit politics is that Newt Gingrich was essentially doing the same thing yet presiding over the impeachment hearings. I mean seriously, why the hell do you care if someone is getting a BJ. Claiming that this is somehow as bad as Nixon trying to cover up the fact that he negotiated an extension of the Vietnam war to win an election is just stupid.

This is really creepy. Imagine twenty years ago that the feds would be able to detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your private photo's, your call log, your agenda, friends, (snail) mail, basically all your private data, on suspicion of a copyright violation. What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?

They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.

Your empathy with someone wrongly harassed and detained is impressive. Tell me, can you be so sure when faced with professional interrogators that you would do exactly the 'correct' thing that you claim? They know what they are doing, you know, they're not idiots. Wouldn't they just change their tack... can you anticipate their every move?

Try to be annoyed at the right people, this stuff matters. Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.

"Tell me, can you be so sure when faced with professional interrogators that you would do exactly the 'correct' thing that you claim? They know what they are doing, you know, they're not idiots. Wouldn't they just change their tack... can you anticipate their every move?"

Yes. There are only 3 easy rules to follow and they always work.

1. Don't talk to the police.2. Don't talk to the police.3. Don't talk to the police.

Tell me, can you be so sure when faced with professional interrogators that you would do exactly the 'correct' thing that you claim?

Actually, yes, from more experience than I'd like. However, this part isn't hard. You only have five things you EVER say to a pig.

1) No (if a pig asks to come inside, if her or she may search something)
2) Get off my property unless you have a warrant.
3) Why? (If a pig starts to search/enter over your objections, it's important to try and nail down their excuse in the moment)
4) Am I under arrest?
5) I want to speak with my lawyer.

Resist the urge to add pointless obscentity or insult. The pig is just doing its job. Rembember that the pig isn't so much an evil person as part of an evil system. Killing the pig is pointless unless it helps weaken the system. If the pig makes things personal, resist insult -- be polite, get the pigs name off the incident report, and then handle things later. Not hard to find out where a pig lives if you try.

Wouldn't they just change their tack... can you anticipate their every mo

So what. Every tactic involves the pig either manipulating your natural friendliness and standards of social behavoir to get you to talk or trying to intimidate you into talking. Just remember that the pig is not your friend and you should not treat a pig as if they were a regular member of society to which you have an obligation to behave courteously and with respect. And rember that no matter what a pig says, no matter what the situation, no matter how bad things look, there is never ANY benefit to talking to a pig until after you speak with your attorney.

You think you're innocent and everything will get cleared up easily if only you can explain things? So what. Your attorney can do it better. And your attorney probably won't get scared and talk his way into a felony beef. Better to risk spending a couple of days locked up than to talk to a pig and risk spending years or decades.

Rights are not supposed to be just for the people who know how to play the system.

He was using a video recording device (i.e. wearing it with the camera pointed at the screen) in a cinema. All cinemas I've been to forbid that kind of thing for obvious reasons. I don't think he was "wrongly harassed and detained".

That's only true if you accept that it is OK to ban pointing a recording device at a movie screen and not actually recording anything. I wouldn't be surprised if the law actually bans the possession of a recording device in a theater, which is something EVERYBODY breaks. Heck, there is a policy at my workplace that says that no employee may possess a camera that isn't registered with security. Back in the early 2000s (after everybody already had cell phone cameras) they even posted a sign by the gates stating that cell phone cameras are banned and should be turned into security. Even the corporate-issued cell phones were in violation of the policy. Yet, it remained policy all the same.

People with the power to make laws enjoy making laws that make no sense. They're always overly broad in their scope, that way they can use discretionary enforcement. The company clearly doesn't want to fire all of its employees, but if they even suspect that an employee is taking photos of documents or whatever they can just search them on the way out the door and sure enough they'll have a reason to fire them.

In this case Glass was also the guy's prescription glasses. Does he need to carry two sets of glasses now?

And who would use Glass to pirate a movie in the first place? I doubt the video quality is all that great, and it is attached to a head that is constantly bobbing around. Plus they are worn in plain sight. Anybody who wants to pirate a movie will just bring in a concealed camera and mount it to a stable surface, or more likely still just collaborate with the theater owner. The whole idea of distributing a movie to thousands of theaters and then trying to keep it off of the internet is crazy to begin with - all it takes is one recording, and if they happen to get 2 they can even strip out the watermarking by comparing frames.

He's still an idiot, because I'm sure he had corrective lenses before Google Glass existed, and I'd wager that he still has that set somewhere. Everyone knows that taking a video camera into a theater is a very stupid thing to do. It's about as dumb as "forgetting" that.380 in your belt as you walk into the airport.

Hours of being detained that could have been avoided if they had just searched his devices (which he repeatedly suggested they do)

Funny that the saying goes that "if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide", but when push-comes-to-shove and you obey that rule you get ignored. Almost as if they have too much fun with their "interrogation" and do not want to have it stopped short...

And pardon me, hours of interrogation for an allegation of having recorded something ? I shrudder to think of how many days of interrogation I can look forward to for having been seen jaywalking...

They only got to see because he caved. If he had laid his head down on the table for a nap and told the interrogators "call me when my lawyer gets here", he'd be a hero. Instead, he's a glasshole who pointed a camera at a movie for the entire length of the movie (though it was "off"), and caved when the FBI asked him a few questions.

Presumably after paying a vendor $15 to sit in a dark room for two hours, one would assume he would "point" his face at the very thing he paid for. Gee, can't wait for your argument here when Glass comes in prescription form. I suppose all those with bad eyesight will be assumed criminals.

And standing your ground with your Rights is going to cost you at least $3000 in legal and courtroom fees, along with time off from work. If someone is truly innocent and they know this, and don't mind sharing their personal information to prove their innocence, then the person is not a "glasshole". It was wrong for what the Feds did. The problem with their brash arrogance is they know the average citizen can't afford to defend their Rights in court, so they abuse their own rights and manipulate citizens.

Those who argue what he should or should not have done should remember what YOU would do in that situation, facing thousands in legal costs simply to stand your ground. Unless they fire up kickstarters to start funding those defense costs, the average citizen WILL cave. And LE and government WILL target the poor. They know what happens when they target the rich. Sad, but very true.

Best part being his Glass *was* prescription. So not only is he guilty of pointing his face at a screen, he also is guilty of wanting to be able to discern what he is looking at. Presumably that costs more than the standard $15 he paid...

This is really creepy. Imagine twenty years ago that the feds would be able to detain you in a private place and get to inspect all your private photo's, your call log, your agenda, friends, (snail) mail, basically all your private data, on suspicion of a copyright violation. What happened to 'presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law'?

You are quite ignorant about what is going on there. While being under suspicion of having committed a crime, you can be investigated, there can be search warrants, and so on, all while you are "presumed innocent". Then you may go to court. And there the judge tells the jury "the fact that this man is here in court and accused of a crime, and the fact that these policemen spent many hours looking for evidence, doesn't mean he is guilty. You start looking at him as 'presumed innocent'. Then the prosecution will show evidence against him, and the defence will show evidence for him, and then you decide based on the evidence and nothing else".

The situation that happened was one where someone who was actually guilty and not investigated immediately would easily be able to destroy all evidence against them. You will be denied the basic human right of taking a shower if you are found near a body who was stabbed, with blood on your hands, and quite rightfully so.

Using the GPs shower example, if you're covered in blood and refuse a search you'll be held until a search warrant can be obtained. If the FBI did anything wrong here it was holding him for so long without searching him, since he voluntarily submitted.

> federal agents insisted on interrogating the user for hours. So long for our> constitutional freedoms."

Didn't he have the choice of just getting up and leaving? Was he under arrest? If he's not been arrested, how's he lost a freedom. And if he has, challenge it in court. Sounds like he's missed a trick here.

Yeah, first question would have been "Am I being detained?" followed by "I want to call my attorney and I don't consent to a search", all while recording audio at a minimum to his Google Drive.
They have to stop questioning him until an attorney arrives or anything they get is inadmissible. Of course, "cooperating" with the FBI, while really stupid, won't necessarily stop the interview process.
Why didn't he just invoke his rights and wait for an attorney. Yes, he did nothing wrong. But the FBI doesn't know that and would have held him anyway.

If this all really happened (really we just have a friend of a friend posting on some site) then it's a good example of why "I have nothing to hide, so what am I worried about?" type of argument is so stupid. Guy is completely innocent of any wrong doing, and they grill him for hours, and he's still shaking a day after. If you've ever been in a situation where you're being accused of wrongdoing, you know how infuriating/scary it can be, especially when you're completely innocent. Really, he should have said either charge me or I'm leaving, but how many of us would want a federal case against us, even if it would eventually get dismissed? What recourse would he have after the fact, to dissuade this sort of behavior from the police in the future? Instead, he tried to clear himself immediately, and they still grilled him for hours.

Of course, people will just say you shouldn't bring a camera into a movie theater. Nevermind we're all guilty of this - it's likely your phone has a camera as well. This one just happens to be up on his face.

One core aspect of the problem here is the Hollywood lobby has managed to turn a civil matter copyright infirgment into a criminal one and also got the public footing the bill for most of the investigative work.

Once you are in there they control your reality. If you try to wrest that control from them they will make you pay in some form. In my long experience (including family killed by police - unwarranted, and personally prison time), many to most cops are bullies, or grow to be so in the culture they work in. The ones that are not tend to get weeded out or self select out.

This guy should have never spoken to them. Period. Arrest me, give me a lawyer or let me walk out the door. No other words should have escaped his lips.

When you are innocent that is hard to fathom, especially without experience of this type of treatment, but unfortunately it is true. If yo notice, the cops involved slowly went through obviously non-related materials. What if he had his kids bath time photos/videos on there? An over zealous cop could have charges him with child porn charges. Oh, uploaded them to G+, that's distribution there sonny.

I know some of those still caught in the fear and slow panic the government and media feed them will attack and say that would never happen. To them, all I can say is wait till it happens to you.

Guys like this are what gives glass a bad name. Its about what you would expect a theater to do if you pointed a camera at the screen the whole time. That said, you couldn't really record the whole movie, and even if you could, it would be jittery and not great resolution. Yet another case of misunderstood technology being foolishly abused.

Throw away copyright laws... at least as far as individual consumers are concerned. This is the future. Pretty soon we'd have recording gadgets so small and much more inconspicuous that only a TSA-style patdown/scanning will reveal them. So why bother imposing draconian copyright laws unless they're against those ripoff "artists" who try to sell other people's works for profit?

1. The cinema guy is stupid for calling the FBI and escalating the situation way out of hand.

2. The MPAA/FBI are stupid for actually putting time and resources into fighting cam-rips. Absolutely no threat to the industry, as anybody who has tried to watch one knows. Letting pirates have their cam-rips just makes authentic cinemagoing look better.

3. The Glasshole was stupid for sitting in a cinema quite openly pointing a camera at the screen. Glass users appear to have their empathy surgically removed by Google, and are entirely oblivious to any kind of reaction anybody might have to a ubiquitous filming device. Repeating "but it isn't on" as a mantra does nothing to help. Having a face camera redefines your relations with other people and your environment, in an almost entirely negative way. You want to become a surveillance drone? Fine, deal with the social consequences.

I'm normally on the side of the little guy, and against big media throwing its weight around. Glassholes are sufficiently selfish and idiotic for me to momentarily switch sides. I've already written about what a crappy society such people would create: http://edgepenguin.com/content... [edgepenguin.com]

It's just possible that the glass was providing viewing notes for the film, to allow him to better understand the subtle nuances, to immerse himself in the cleverly constructed character back-stories... [what? 'Jack Ryan, Shadow Recruit'?... oh]

More generic lesson; don't point a video camera at the screen in a movie theater.

Exacly! If you for some reason like to walk around wearing a video camera all the time, you should consider taking it off before going places video cameras are not allowed (Don't wear it when helping your daugther change in the girls change room before swimming either!).

Don't you find it just a bit unbelieveable that the FBI is called in to investigate what is merely a matter of policy for a movie theater? What's next, bringing in the marines to root out and execute a homeless man sleeping on private property?

I know, crazy, right? It's not like the FBI is responsible for investigating copyright infringement or anything. Oh, wait. It is. While the situation was completely ridiculous, it did get to the correct party.

Not really. They're basically just federal-level police, and copying movies is a federal crime. People act as if the FBI is some big, specialist organization that only deals with major issues, but the fact is that most of what they do is mundane stuff like this. Once you realize that, it doesn't seem that out of place for them to have gotten involved, though I will admit that it's still a bit on the excessive side, since this sort of thing should have been easily handled in a talk with a theater manager.

while I agree on principle to what you are writing, I completely disagree that this requires the sort of response being afforded to some assholes in hollywood.

If I owned a product and someone else started copying and selling it, the most protection I am afforded is a Civil lawsuit to prove I am damaged and then financial compensation is awarded against the defendant.

Yet the exact same crime done to big studios suddenly comes with a jail sentence and violation of about half a dozen civil rights. I would say that would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, since by way of financial discrimination, my rights are treated differently than those major studios; except that the 14th amendment only seems to tell individual states what they could do. No one had any idea of a federal police state (FBI) in 1868. So they appear to operate outside the law.

HA!Check out "Forest Gump" on Wikipedia to get why your argument is so ridiculous. No profit no tax.

Lobbying allows plenty of representation without much taxation by getting a blind eye turned to vast amounts of fraud. You are paying for the FBI to to this, not Hollywood since their money is going to the people that are not supposed to take bribes but can take "lobby" money.

And you are comparing the total theoretical cost of all piracy everywhere to the actual damage of a single burglary. Compare millions of dollars in theoretical lost revenue to the damage of every burglary everywhere and you have a more accurate comparison.

So you're going to tell blind people who have cameras for eyes they have to turn them off?

Maybe it's time to face the future instead of being stuck in the past. People are going to have digital eyes instead of biological eyes. First those with bad site, then soldiers, then the public. They're also going to have digital memory instead of biological memory. You have no more right to tell me how to use my digital eyes and digital memory then you do for my biological eyes and biological memory. That fact that there is a distinction today is irrelevant and will have to change in the near future.

It's absolutely pathetic if the FBI actually gets involved in cases like this. Oh, no... someone might be copying data or recording a movie screen! This looks like a job for the FBI! Certainly not a case where the property owners should just kick the guy out, no... the FBI!

The pathetic thing that you're missing, Mr "I Am Happy Living In A Police State", is that no "crime", federal or otherwise, was committed. I can't wait for the day when I can get you pulled over by a bunch of thugs for the entire afternoon complete with 3rd degree and cavity search just because I dunno, I just don't like the look of you and don't think you should be wearing what you are. I mean, you COULD be a terrorist...

I feel your sentiment too but you know it is not working this way, do you not? I mean whatever that is at the beginning - mass but mostly failed attempts to fight the IP crime (funny how that has a different meaning in my and their worlds) or just exercises in using certain laws, it all may change into silent mode in which most will not be bothered but some chosen ones will be, because law allows it. I know it from old good times under communist regime. The laws guaranteed us all the freedoms people in the

Actually this will be a real problem when they start having prescription Google Glass. People will ware them because they have to in order to see. If they take them off before going into a theater they won't be able to see the movie. I know the simple solution for them will be to just not go see movies, but it was a pretty similar scenario five to ten years ago with cell phones.

I remember once, after paying for a tickets, my wife and I got the the theater doors (big multiplex theater) and there was a guy with a bin and bags sitting at the door making everyone put their phones in little plastic bags, write their names on them and toss them in the bin. My wife and I stopped going to the theaters for a couple years after that. We were rather insulted they made us pay nearly $50 (no refunds) before making us give up our brand new phones without telling us a head of time and we weren't going to leave our phones at home just because the theater didn't want us to have them. Just as I suspected would happen there was a bin of phones stolen because the guy that was suppose to be watching them ran off for a pee brake. The theater tried to give everyone a free movie as compensation, but was ultimately responsible for replacing everyone's phones, I'm betting some that weren't even stolen, which ended up costing them several thousand.

And that was before people used their phones for anything serious like banking. I can only imagine the shit storm there'd be if peoples bank accounts started getting hacked after the theater lost them, but I'm off topic at this point.

Or, you know, he just didn't think it bothered anyone and no one said anything to him until the FBI dragged him out of a theater. Maybe he didn't see any reason for carrying two pairs of glasses around for doing different things. I only need glasses for reading. I don't wear them all the time and I don't carry them with me because it's a pain to carry a fragile pair of glasses around unless your actually wearing them. Glasses are too fragile to just stick in your pant pocket and cases for them are too bulky.

He still wore a wearable video camera into a movie theatre. What the hell did he think would happen?

It boggles the mind that people are being apologists for what he did. I agree that it probably didn't need involvement of the FBI, but how anybody could be so incredibly naive as to think that wearing a video camera into a movie theatre would be a good idea is just incredible.

No one told him there was an issue and he'd been doing it for months. I would have at least expected a manager to ask him politely at first. What makes his glasses any different from a regular cell phone? Aside from the fact that he also requires them to see and they're actually on his face instead of in his hand.

You guys need to get over the word "apologists", frankly it makes you sound like your parroting some right and/or left wing extremest political view. I've mostly gotten in the habit of as soon as I read that word I shutdown and ignore everything else as been completely off base and out side of normal reality. Actually I just had a good laugh because after typing all that I read your user name (reality impaired).

How would a cinema enforce a life-time, chain-wide ban? Just keep bugging them and don't forget to lawyer up.

The second time you "bug them" they charge you with criminal trespass? At that point it doesn't matter what you're doing, you're breaking the law just by being there. Even if you're not bugging them, if a security guard recognizes you when you're out with family or friends and have left your Google Glass at home they still have the right to have the cops arrest you.

In other countries some functionary will come up to you and say "put that away please".Then they would politely ask you to leave, and then sternly ask you to leave. Then a security guard would forcibly haul you off the property.

Only in the US is are you getting law enforcement jumping to the opportunity to bust a guy a with a recording device in a movie theater. I bet they had the black helicopters and swat teams ready too.

Not just law enforcement, but the F-B-fucking-I. What the heck is going on in the US that one guy seemingly recording a movie requires a prompt response from the most important crime-fighting agency in the country?

Unfortunately we are quickly approaching the position, if not there already, where you can point a camera everywhere and no-one will ever know. If you can see it, you can record it.

Want to ensure no-one records something? Then don't let them see it.

I fully support the film industry's right to be paid for their work, but they have to face up to the inevitable. In the near future they will not be able to prevent cinema goers recording films. Their only options are to make the recording so degraded in some way, that no one will pay to see it, or make the experience of seeing it in a cinema so much better that people will not chose to watch a recording.

More generic lesson; don't point a video camera at the screen in a movie theater.

And when a "video camera" is in the form of prescription glasses, it tends to make this lesson...not one.

If you're a Glass owner, you know there are places where the device will be unwelcome or barred. You'd best have a non-videorecording set of prescription lenses, for basically the same reason you have prescription sunglasses. There are responsible Glass owners and irresponsible jerks. There are responsible dog owners and irresponsible jerks. Responsible car owners and irresponsible jerks. We have rules for discouraging people from being irresponsible jerks. The rules have not caught up with Glass, yet

Or, use the following two statements to end the interview before it goes on for 5 hours:

1. "Am I being charged with a crime?"2. "I am not going to talk to you without a lawyer present."

If the answer to #1 is no, get up and walk away. If they don't let you leave, they'd better charge you with something or it's false imprisonment. If the answer is yes, then they had better Mirandize you immediately, and you follow up with #2. And then you shut your mouth and don't say a word until a lawyer from the publi

THE BIG LESSON that should be learned here is;When asked, provide your name, address and identification.When asked anything further, your response should be Eat shit, porky, I dont see my lawyer anywhere, how bout you cunts go down to the gym and pump each other, till he gets here.

When dealing with those who believe they have unfettered power over you, it is good to show a strong understanding of your rights. If they persist, offer to donate some DNA to their wives, so their families wont be so inbred. Just wait for your lawyer and SAY NOTHING. They may hold you for a couple days, but eventually you will see your lawyer. When you get out, THEN call the press and post the shit out of it.

Then he gets arrested on reasonable suspicion rather than questioned. The laptop may happen after his arraignment. Which creates an incentive for the FBI to find other illegal stuff. Moreover a federal arrest in and of itself is a rather big deal.

Which is why you need the two magic phrases: "Am I free to go?", "I want a lawyer".

Seriously, hours of a moron trying to "verbal" a confession out of someone when he had the whole and entire evidence in his possession. This is a perfect example, you are never helping yourself by cooperating with this crap.

Which is why you need the two magic phrases: "Am I free to go?", "I want a lawyer".

Seriously, hours of a moron trying to "verbal" a confession out of someone when he had the whole and entire evidence in his possession. This is a perfect example, you are never helping yourself by cooperating with this crap.

Am I free to go? [No.] I want a lawyer.

This sounds great. And maybe for some people it is. Do you have a lawyer on retainer? Then by all means, this is for you. I'm pretty sure that Joe Average Citizen does not have his own personal lawyer available at a quick call. So what happens then? Do they just assign some random lawyer to you from the public defender's office? In that case you might be better off trying to be your own lawyer. Suppose they just give you a phone and say "OK, find a lawyer to call"? Who do you call when you've never

Do they just assign some random lawyer to you from the public defender's office? In that case you might be better off trying to be your own lawyer.

It should be noted that this commonly held belief is actually false. Public defenders are paid hourly by the state or federal government, and thus have an incentive to do as much as possible for you. Unless you're very wealthy, private criminal defense attorneys tend to be paid a set retainer up front (e.g. "$5000 to get you to trial, and we'll talk then about the next retainer if you want to go through trial") and thus have an incentive to do as little as possible, since the less time they spend on you, the more profit they make. If you can't drop $50k on your defense, then you're much better off with the public defender.

That's something I never understood in the U.S. justice system. It relies too much on testimony and confession and not so much on evidence. Humans err. Humans err the whole time. Wishful thinking, prejudices, wanting to have seen something that wasn't objectively to be seen, coerced testimonies and confessions cast so much doubt on them. But their words are taken as pure gold in court. Attorneys General refuse to withdraw their accusations, courts refuse to overturn convictions in light of new evidence just because there exists a confession or even just a testimony about the existance of a confession, whatever dubious the circumstances where during which it allegedly came about.

They are highly trained. They know how to push buttons, muddy matters to confuse you to get you to do what they want you to do. They will keep fishing until they find something that bothers you.

It is not easy as just saying lawyer and warrant.

I would suggest practicing the scenario. Just thinking you can say lawyer and warrant etc is completely different than when you are in the situation.

For example, technically the police cannot search your car or belongings. However, they can search for weapons or they can search if there is some suspicion etc etc. There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

...There are many clauses. The police will start working you towards something that will enable them to search you. You have to practice otherwise you will be an amateur trying to battle professionals.

Yes, I agree. This is also exactly why legal professionals have but ONE recommendation for anyone being questioned by law enforcement, regardless of the accusation or situation: STFU.

Readers in the UK should bear in mind that our legal system is different. If you STFU it may harm your defence [wikipedia.org] if you don't mention something which you later rely on in court.

Violating his civil rights by falsely reporting his medical equipment as being something criminal, when they had no evidence of a crime, and could have cleared with a simple conversation. They had every right to ask him to leave, but not to make a false report.

What is funny is NONE of the illegal versions of films are done in local theaters general seating. NONE. They are done by the staff in the booth or more typically the screeners are recoded at the Studio it's self.

Only the utter crap wanna-be releases are camcorder in a theater.

But the MPAA wants us to feel like dirty criminals when we go to the theater instead of cleaning their own house like they need to.